This is interesting.

Makes some good points. I was thinking that the plane should have ripped the pentagon to bits as well. Particularly with all that fuel on board like at the WTC.

that's interesting

so how are they accounting for the plane that went missing then?

i think there are some very plausible explanations for the points raised

This IS interesting!

Now, Im not an aviation expert, but it DOES seem odd.

Who knows something about the plane that hit the Pentagon? Is there a dedication website from/for the families. I havent heard much about that plane.

Very interesting indeed.

only way to explain how it would have happened like that would have been if it was almost at 90 deg's and wing clipped the ground followed by ploughing down and smacking from a distance
but that would require much debris

gah
^
|
Me
stupid xp not wanting to install

MS Ninja, and particularly given the front lawn looked completely in tact the wing could not have hit the ground first. The car bomb theory looks very plausible.

Also there was never any video footage released (that I am aware of). Surely there would be security cameras everywhere at the Pentagon.

Besides all that stuff above.

The thing I found wierd was there was basically no media attention given to the pentagon at all. Being a federal army building type thing that's probably why, but still.

Either way, something blew s*** up, and it wasn't very nice :(

Footage was released, and it showed a plane slamming into the building, clearly. Could have been forged, but meh, it looked pretty damn real.

Keep in mind, the pentagon was built to withstand nuclear blasts, so I can easily understand why a plane crashing into it didn't cause that much damage.

With that in mind, the first few points are pretty dumb, because that is about how much damage a plane crashing into a structure like the pentagon would cause, not that I'm an expect on things like this, but its pretty easy to figure that out.

The lawn and the lack of wreckage are pretty weird, but I wouldn't put it down to a conspiracy, I'd just leave it as pretty weird. The fact that they put sand and gravel over the lawn was probably just to make it easier for the heavy equipment to get in and out of the site for the repair work.

Yeah I think Khel is on the mark

This webpage looks like one of those cheapass THE MOON LANDING WAS JUST A BIG FAKE! websites....

On the other hand, maybe the Americans just made all those sites so the truly brilliant of us (me), would just disregard this new evidence of a government conspiracy to cover up the fact that the fighter pilots just up and blew away some boeing plane for no reason at all and had to use the truck driving into the pentagon to cover their ass.

Yea thats it.

hey khel, you know you should be giving props to me for that news steal!

nah, you're not worthy of my props. Get cyph to give you props, hes easy.

but cyphs props are so dirty, they go out to almost anyone

Hmmm, well now I dont feel so stupid for questioning the whole thing from the beginning :\

props are for truly brilliant discoveries. this was just news.

Pentagon built to withstand nuclear bomb
If this is true I would be getting on the phone to tamawood, cause whatever it was f***ed up the building.

if they can account for the missing plane and the 150 dead ppl that were booked on the flight and are now dead, i might consider the theory.

Keep in mind, the pentagon was built to withstand nuclear blasts, so I can easily understand why a plane crashing into it didn't cause that much damage.

Withstand a nuclear bomb? Wouldnt withstand a direct groundburst. The buildings above ground might survive an air-burst, however the overpressure and fireball would do a s***load of damage.

This page impressed me twice.
First with the phat theories
And second with the horizontal scrolling links.

I think the whole WTC thing was a big hoax too, staged by the Americans.
Isn't it interesting how no one knows anything about what happened on those planes... and yet how easily they found out that Bin-Laden was responsible for the whole thing.
Seems quite fishy to me.

Personally if I wanted to attack a country and get my citizens to sympathise with me, I would probably do the same.
But that's irrelevant.

I read somewhere that America was intending to invade Afghanistan in October of the same year anyways. Hell they already have the troop build up there.

They wanted to invade to try and establish an American friendly government.

There is a s***load of petroleum and gas products in the middle-east but they do not want to build a pipeline through Russia and breakaway republics to Asia because those governments will want to charge them too much in royalties for the pipeline.

They would much prefer to install a "democratic government" in Afghanisatan and run the pipes through there for a fraction of the cost.

I've gotta admit that whole thing is very odd. We all saw, first hand how much damage a plane does to a building. So this theory isnt all that far off. Maybe it did get hit by a plane, but maybe it wasnt as big as they thought it was.......

Petrol bombs make one big bang and burn for ages, imagine a plane of that size full of fuel hitting the pentagon, should have been way more damage.

It would have been an excellent way to put more troops into the middle eastern region. America wants to have full control of everything, yanks wont stop until they have a hand in it all.

i would've assumed with the momentum the plane had, most of the debris would be inside the building.
Plus it's plainly obvious that something struck the building from above

I WOULD ALLSO LIKE TO BE ONE

you can make up whever stupid conspiracy's you like, but until you explain what happened to the people you have absolutely no case

although they could of just used a suitcase nuke mofo...

hahahaha verticalseafoodtaco.

i think that a nuke is a bit boger than a suitcase :P

Is this from that stupid French dudes book about it being a big conspiracy?!?

Anyway, a few things which I see in the page:

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

If what is being said is true, that the pentagon was built to be very strong, then maybe it was designed in such a way that anything hitting the building, wouldn't go through the first ring. This could be exemplified by a car bombs going off next to it, the second ring would always remain intact because the first ring acts as a barrier to protect second...

You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Maybe the plane went into the building at an angle form above the building, it doesn't show any top down photos to show how deep the damage went into building, the previous photo stating that the plane hit lower floors first doesn't actually show the first floor only being damaged, it could be a diff bit, to left or right of main crash zone...

Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Often in construction a bed of rock and sand is placed down to stop any heavy machinery getting bogged in wet grass mud, if a lot of heavy machines were going back and forward across the area then a temporary road would need to be built hence that...

Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Well no, but can you explain the reason for the second damaged area?
http://qmass.ausgamers.com/crash.jpg

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Maybe at that stage because there was so much damage and because the plane was not recognisable(so much damage from heat?) they didn't want to scare anyone who may have died in the pentagons, families without being sure...

Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

No because it is the section pictured here, :) huh huh.
http://qmass.ausgamers.com/crash.jpg

In the end I just reckon the french are gay attention seeking tossers. :) Nahh, really just the guy who made this...
Again is it from that book that was written and has been selling like hotcakes? Read the article from the BBC here!

Phew, last time I actually try and post somthing that isn't spam...:)

Quick! Call Hunter!

i think that a nuke is a bit boger than a suitcase :P

There isn't one pre-determined size for a nuke you know... :P Maybe it was a real small one.

Reply to my s***e argument please.. :)

Suitcase nukes exist... or theoretically can be made, I can't remember. Obviously it isn't going to level a city. but it will level a big building without needing a truck full of explosives.

This may just be something stupid, but can you explain what's up (in this picture) with the big hole in the fence in the lower right corner and the semi-crushed truck next to it. Now either this shows that something has rammed down the fence and this could either be a truck, or a part of the plane (a wing?). So it could provide evidence for either theory (whether it was a truck bomb or plane. . .).
I just found it interesting. . .

Keep in mind, the pentagon was built to withstand nuclear blasts, so I can easily understand why a plane crashing into it didn't cause that much damage.

Gah? I dont think any designer in the world is optimistic enough to claim their structure could withstand a direct hit from a nuclear weapon. Cyph put it very nicely, a direct hit from a decent size warhead (eg >5 MT) would basically smash anything, repeat, anything at that point, even down to several hundred feet underground. A air burst overhead would obliterate at the very least the top structure. Seriously man, even NORAD command is no longer said to be capable of taking a direct hit from a large weapon, and thats built under a god damn granite mountain.

Well no, but can you explain the reason for the second damaged area?

Fire. As I recall from the time, most of the Pentagon fatalities were a result of a fire that spread through the area. In that photo you can see a continuous area of burnt bulding between the two most damaged spots. Clear explanation for me :)

Oh, that truck's nothing. It was just filled with Chlorine and brake fluid, with a Koran on the front seat.

Nothing to do with the "airplane crash" - or is it?

if america gets on side with afghanistan, they would GET THEIR HEROIN SO MUCH CHEAPER!!!
WHAT AN AWESOME IDEA

drugs make the world go round, ask your friendly local dealer

Gah? I dont think any designer in the world is optimistic enough to claim their structure could withstand a direct hit from a nuclear weapon. Cyph put it very nicely, a direct hit from a decent size warhead (eg >5 MT) would basically smash anything, repeat, anything at that point, even down to several hundred feet underground. A air burst overhead would obliterate at the very least the top structure. Seriously man, even NORAD command is no longer said to be capable of taking a direct hit from a large weapon, and thats built under a god damn granite mountain.

For those who don't know, NORAD is housed in Cheyenne Mountain, the place were Stargate Sg-1 is set.
The mountain is designed to collapse in on itself as a self-destruct mechanism so enemies can't get any of America's secrets. So a nuke would definitly f*** up the mountain.

Sure, lets all believe this 'conspiracy' theory from some nerd who probably never leaves his room. I don't see how he compensated for the (probably) hundreds of people who saw the plane hit the building!

"saw the plane"

Sif seeing things means anything, just ask trippers.

yes, because drug users are a reliable source of information

"my pancreas is travelling through time! ! !"

Speaking of Suitcase Nukes...

http://pics.sluggy.com/comics/000612a.gif

Sheez, that comic relies so much on text to carry any humor, rather than visual... No skill at drawing either really. Makes you appreciate how skilled the guys from megatokyo and penny arcade really are. :)

It's the idea, not the drawing, that counts.

mmmmmm.

[Q], it doesn't have to be visularly(sp) spectacular to be funny. PA and Megatokyo aren't that spectactular either, but they can still be funny.
/me thinks maybe he should post a `Fire and Rain' strip. They have clouds and rain and everything in them!

It's the idea, not the drawing, that counts.

Exactly.

the lack of colour hurts my eyes

and that site is a load of arse, we all know the wtc calapsed because of the intense heat causing the steel to weaken

if you look at the photos of the WTC just after the impact you see relatively little external damage (sometihng like 4 stories tall 1/2 width of the towers).

and considering the pentagon is a concrete building, intense heat would have been less damaging, and the plane would have hit horizontally and as it says on the page, at ground level i think its perfectly reasonable for it to have been a plane to have hit it

and besides WHY THE f*** WOULD THEY FAKE IT?

because they faked the WTC as well!

i read the theory and i also found it interesting :P

f*** the other facts.. what i read there is the TRUTH!

the plane and all of the people are in khels pants ...


Look no more.

First thing you should all remember is that the pentagon was designed to with stand a bombing from both the air and ground.So structurely it is very strong even the intence fire from the fuel wouldn't of done a great deal of damage to the concrete walls.Plus I was always under the impression that the plane came in on it's side thus minimising the width of the damaged area.

I have a few question now.

1)Don't you think a bomb in a truck would have left a large crator ie Oaklahoma bombing stlye.I see no evidence of one?

2)How are you suposed to use heavy machinery on a lawn to work on and to repair the biulding without having a firm base to work on?
Thats why the truck is dumping sand and the dozer is laying down a base.

I don't think they raised many valid points in that little speel they just didn't think it through very well.

Incase some of you didn't know one of the major reasons the World Trade center came down was because there was no concrete surrounding the floor braces and central colum of the two biuldings.The inner steal frame work was covered with a fire retardent foam to reduce the overall weight and it was removed due to the impact of the planes,thus leaving the floor braces and inner steal structure exposed to the fire created by the fuel.

The steal melted causing the damaged section to colapse onto the ones below causing the overall colapse.This was what made both biuldings fall.

Now the Pentagon has a combination of steal and concrete construction making it less likely to suffer similar damage becuase it has been purpose biult to handle explosions so it was more able to withstand the impact of an aircraft.

Who cares.
All those people got nailed by the aircraft and America got it's troops into the Middle East.

So where is the fuggin plane???

How do you camoflague a 767!!!

Mate at any speed there is never going to be much left of a plane on impact.

Yes planes always vaporize on impact, and no one has ever seen a plane wreck.

u are quite nieve arent ya

there are several walls that surround the pentagon, what i believe is the plane comes in on an angle, skims off the ground, the force ripping the wings back along the fuselage then it barrels like a torpedo into the wall, most of the wreckage being inside the first wall, and as the walls are concrete or whatever, heat isnt going to be a problem and the fire burns in between the two walls for a while.

everyone is saying where is the plane?

where the f*** do you think it is?

it crashed into the pentagon there's nothing left of it!

I haven't seen the wreckages of any 767's where the WTC is and we all know there's no f***ing doubt a plane hit them

u could see the tail of one of them.
however once the impact into the pentagon took place the heat would have been trapped and alot more concentrated that it was in the wtc, what was left of the body on impact would have been incinerated.

funny, I dont see any aircraft wreckage from the WTC either

whatcha talking about phoniex, they found heaps of tiny bits of the plane in the rubble.

and I guess they would have found heaps of tiny bits of plane at the pentagon as well.

cover-ups are all the rage